From Constitutive Outside to the Politics of Extinction: Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory, and Political Theory

• Author: Mary Hawkesworth
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910367496
• Date: 01 September 2010
• Published date: 01 September 2010
• Subject Matter: Mini-Symposium

Political Research Quarterly
63(3) 686 –696
From Constitutive Outside
© 2010 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
to the Politics of Extinction:
DOI: 10.1177/1065912910367496
http://prq.sagepub.com
Critical Race Theory, Feminist
Theory, and Political Theory
Mary Hawkesworth1
Abstract
Although feminist theory and critical race theory engage questions about human nature and subjectivity, criteria of legitimacy, philosophies of his-
tory, structures of power, forms of social and communal organization; and characteristics of a just polity, questions that are central concerns of
political theorists, these distinctive theoretical approaches are often ignored, neglected, or marginalized within the subfield of political theory. This
article examines the dimensions, causes, and political implications of such exclusion.
Keywords
critical race theory, feminist theory, political theory
What sorts of question, what forms of inquiry, what
about the nature and practices of politics in general and
dreams of possible worlds are encouraged as well as dis-
the limitations of contemporary political science in
couraged when the enterprise of political theory is defined
particular. Challenging each aspect of this coveted self-
as a specialized subfield within a professionalized aca-
image, Kaufman-Osborn (2008, 7) suggests that political
demic discipline?
theory is less a coherent field than a collection of
“fractured and parochial discursive enclaves”; less an
Kaufman-Osborn (2008, 5)
ancient tradition than a self-vindicating myth whose
origin has been traced variously to the late nineteenth
As Tim Kaufman-Osborn (2008, 4) so cogently demon-
century, to the late 1930s, and to a defensive mobilization
strates in “Political Theory as a Profession?” conceptual-
against the behavioral revolution of the early 1960s; and
izations of political theory are thoroughly political:
less the moral conscience of the discipline of political
science than a manifestation of a marked failure to criticize
[T]o locate the borders of political theory here but
late liberalism and the American academy’s investment in
not there, to differentiate it from this project but not
U.S. hegemony.
that, to tell its history in this manner as opposed to
Kaufman-Osborn notes that his analysis of political
some other . . . is neither innocuous nor innocent. It
theory as a subfield is indebted to “identity theory,” which
is not innocent because the way these projects are
“teaches that identity is created through borders and oppo-
conducted is bound up with reproduction of very
sitions. The outside constructs the inside and then hides
real configurations of power, many of which extend
this work of fabrication in an entity that appears to give
far beyond the discipline of political science as
birth to itself.”1 Pointing out that identities grounded in
well as the academy; and it is not innocuous
“exclusions and illusions of stability” are likely to have a
because the way these tasks are completed, whose
conservative edge, Kaufman-Osborn (2008, 21) suggests
meaning is never altogether under the control of its
that the dominant construction of political theory is tied to
authors, cannot help but react back upon the imag-
internal demarcations within U.S. political science that
ined community of political theorists and, in so
presuppose thoroughly discredited conceptions of knowl-
doing, shape its members’ conception of the enter-
edge. “If political theorists define themselves in terms of
prise to which they are committed.
1Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
In this courageous essay, Kaufman-Osborn interrogates a
Corresponding Author:
particular construction of political theory as a coherent
Mary Hawkesworth, Rutgers University, Department of Women’s
field with a long and distinguished history dating back to
and Gender Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
antiquity and a particular mission to foster critical thinking
Email: mhawkes@rci.rutgers.edu

---

Hawkesworth
687
what they are not, then in a sense their identity requires
(2008, 8, emphasis added) suggests that such problematic
perpetuation of the other subfields to which they are
claims are “offensive insofar as they render invisible, or
uneasily yoked. The same is true, of course, of those who
worse, effectively assume credit for the contributions of
define themselves through reference to other subfields as
those who do not deem themselves political theorists, but
well, and so all are complicitous in preserving boundar-
who have vitally shaped recent discussions of the politics
ies that no one, except for a few true believers, now finds
of race, gender, and postcolonial ideologies.” While
intellectually defensible.”
Kaufman-Osborn is altogether correct that there is great
In his effort to move beyond an overly professional-
feminist theory and critical race theory originating out-
ized conception of political theory that is tacitly invested
side of political theory understood as a subfield of politi-
in the perpetuation of troubling intellectual boundaries
cal science, this particular formulation tends to mask the
within political science, Kaufman-Osborn (2008, 7-8)
presence of feminist theorists and critical race theorists
explores several alternative ways to think about the prac-
within the discipline. By emphasizing voluntary disiden-
tice of political theory. One way is to analyze what politi-
tification from political theory, this construction tends to
cal theorists do; another is to consider political theorists’
render invisible the critical race theorists and feminist
self-identifications:
theorists who understand themselves to be political theo-
rists by inclination, training, and profession.
If political theory is identified by what its practitio-
References to feminist theory surface in two other pas-
ners do, it would appear that this category now
sages in the essay, both in the context of quotations from
includes, among others, textual analysis, critical
Dryzek, Honig, and Phillips’s (2008, 28, emphasis added)
theory, post-colonial theory, comparative political
“Introduction” to the Oxford Handbook of Political The-
theory, hermeneutics, normative theory, decon-
ory. Each of these references also positions feminist the-
struction, cultural criticism, political ethics, gene-
ory outside political theory. “Defined by no dominant
alogy, psychoanalytic inquiry, the history of
methodology, [political theory] should be considered an
political thought, and linguistic analysis. If, alter-
‘unapologetically mongrel sub-discipline, made of many
natively, political theory is identified by the labels
traditions, approaches, and styles of thought and increas-
its practitioners are prone to pin on one another,
ingly characterized by its borrowings from feminist and
we must add to this mix of approaches, among
critical theory, film theory, popular culture, mass media,
others, radical democrats, Nietzscheans, republi-
behavioral science, and economics.’” Assuming that one
cans, Habermassians, liberals, Straussians, greens,
cannot borrow from oneself, this formulation again con-
neo-Aristotelians, communitarians, Marxists (neo
structs feminist theory as something other than political
or otherwise), post-structuralists, Rawlsians, prag-
theory, something like political theory’s constitutive out-
matists, pluralists, and perhaps a few anarchists.
side. The second reference to feminism drawn from the
Oxford Handbook “Introduction” conceives feminism as
In this synthetic catalogue of analytic techniques, meth-
a topic about which political theorists have had debates.
odological approaches, ideological commitments, and
Within this frame, political theorists are said to have ini-
intellectual heritages within contemporary political the-
tially pondered feminism as “critical of liberalism” only
ory, there are some puzzling omissions, most notably
to conclude that feminism had made “peace with this tra-
critical race theory and feminist theory. These omissions
dition” (Dryzek, Honig, and Phillips 2008, 30). Taken up
seem particularly odd not only because these are such
as a topic of passing interest and largely discarded, this
vibrant modes of contemporary political theory but also
construction too casts feminist theory as something other
because Kaufman-Osborn himself has made such sig-
than an integral part of contemporary political theory.3
nificant contributions to scholarship in these frames.2
Although there are many ways to interpret the notable
This initial omission is further complicated by the way
omission of feminist theory and critical race theory from
that theorizations of race and gender surface elsewhere in
these descriptions of political theory, in this essay I read
this essay.
Kaufman-Osborn’s omission as a symptom of a larger
Kaufman-Osborn (2008, 8) challenges the “inflated”
dynamic, a persistent tendency to conceive political the-
and “self-serving claims” of mainstream political theo-
ory within the discipline of political science in ways that
rists who allege to have been the “first [in political sci-
exclude theorizations of gender and race from the central
ence] to focus on the discipline’s ethnocentrism and to
project. Indeed, I suggest that a particular construction of
raise questions of gender and race.” Noting that political
feminist theory and critical race...